12/6/2011: The UO administration has been missing in action since the Lariviere firing. It is obvious that UO needs strong faculty leadership and we clearly have it with our Senate President, the Senate Executive Committee, the Senate, and many, many other faculty, who have showed up and did their teaching and research, and then a year of university service in a few weeks with little sleep.
We don’t yet know who we will get for a president, or what terms he or she will be able to extract from Pernsteiner, the Board, and the Governor. But we do know, absolutely, that without our faculty leadership and the turnout in Portland and at Mac court last week by faculty, students, staff, and alumni we would already have been saddled with one internal toady or another, of OUS’s choosing, and willing to sign on to do OUS’s bidding. I believe that is now off the table. We will know soon.
Wednesday’s meeting is to pass a constitution that will help strengthen the faculty’s role in governance. The faculty have taken this power already – we found it huddled under a bush outside Johnson Hall, a little damp, lonely, but still breathing. Adopting it formally requires a meeting of the faculty assembly as was held last week – not just the Senate. Presumably there will also be news from Senate President Kyr on the search for our new UO president.
Why this is important: (thanks to anon commenter)
If I may try to summarize, it sounds the answer to “why is this all important” is, in part, the following:
(1) Faculty will now be guaranteed a chance to review and offer input on policies that will affect our work and the academic mission of UO.
(2) This constitution encourages collaboration between the pres/admin and the faculty by requiring the president to hear and respond to us on matters that we deem important.
(3) Although state law and board policy vest final authority in the president, defying the will of the faculty will be a very slow and very public process for a president.
So this constitution will try to make the best use of what little power we have, and where our power falls short it will push for transparency.
Can you or someone else say more specifically how the new constitution will strengthen faculty governance? I read it over, and I have some vague ideas, but it would be great if someone who’s been closer to the process – and understands the laws, policies, etc. that it interacts with – could explain it in advance (which may motivate people to come to the meeting).
This new Constitution needs time for discussion and reflection — I don’t have the slightest idea what it is about and I don’t want to have to decide what I think hastily at a meeting in a crowded room.
I think this matter should be tabled, for a vote later after time for proper consideration, especially since the UO administration is in a crisis of flux.
Dear Anonymous members of the Statutory Faculty: The Old Man has some words for you. This document has been evolving over a period of more than two years. Its successive incarnations have been posted on the Senate Website during that time. The version you will be asked to approve has the following improvements over the current Constitution, with which you are thoroughly familiar (it has been on line since May 2010 or there-about). (1) The manner in which University Policies will be developed, approved and posted is now detailed. The process guarantees maximum, legal input from the Faculty. (2) The manner by which the Statutory Faculty shall exercise its legally required oversight over the Senate is now fully spelled out, and involves online interactions and voting in order to maximize Faculty participation. I expect the document to be available on the Senate website by noon today (Tuesday). Read it — you’ll like it. Regarding presidential flux: Old Man suspects that Bob B. will like it. And don’t we wish the room will be crowded. It would be GREAT if the community could see widespread Faculty support for this remarkable, progressive Constitution.
Old Man: I’m not retired, I have other things to do with my time than read various drafts of university policies.
When the UO Federalist papers have been written and I’ve had time to read them, then I’ll consider voting for the new constitution.
The American Constitution was carefully deliberated before adoption — not posted at noon on one day and voted on the next.
Does Berdahl like it? Fine, I’ll be happy to hear him advocate for it after he’s been offered the job of UO president, and accepted it.
Until then I withold judgment.
First anon here. As alluded to above, I actually did read both the old and proposed Constitutions before I posted. But lacking history, context, and adequate knowledge of other policies and laws makes it difficult to fully grasp its significance. Old Man’s response helps. More background and context will help even more. Repeated demands by already-knowledgeable insiders to just “read it” will not. In the email to all statutory faculty, the author (Robert Kyr? the email is unsigned) described this is as “one of the most important meetings in the history of the university” with no explanation why. Some of my colleagues wondered if this was a ploy to take advantage of the moment to get faculty to show up to a boring meeting that doesn’t matter. I trust Kyr too much to think that’s the case, but his words set an awfully high bar (especially when considering the gravity of the meeting we just held). A little more explanation would go a long way.
The Old Man will he happy to answer questions regarding the Constitution online. I’ll watch this site right up until meeting time. There is a reason for the expedited process of ratification — for two years, the Committee has negotiated with the President and we now have a document that he and the Committee are pleased with. Ratification by the Statutory Faculty and the President will put on the record a document that can serve as a statement to incoming presidents regarding the governance principles that are valued by the UO Faculty. Re “one of the most important meetings”: The Old Man’s reason for thinking it to be important is implied above.
Oh, great, a document that few people understand, negotiated with the sacked president. A great basis for the future. Why can’t this at least wait for the new president’s arrival?
For the record, most and perhaps all of these anti-constitution posts seem to be coming from the same person.
Old Man remains at his post, ready to help anyone who would like to gain an understanding of the proposed Constitution. Come aboard, don’t be afraid — it’s not rocket science.
First anon here again. Thank you Old Man for your willingness to answer questions. Here are some:
1. How does the new procedure for Senate approval of policies differ from how things have worked in practice up until now? What is the scope of policies that are and are not subject to this provision?
2. Section 7.2.1.2 describes a process by which the President may reject Senate legislation. If no mutually satisfactory solution can be reached, the statutory faculty assembly will meet to exercise oversight. Section 9.3.1 suggests that the assembly can override a presidential veto of the senate. But 2.7 and 9.4 say that the president can veto any assembly decision, and it does not enumerate any exceptions. This leaves it ambiguous as to who prevails in a dispute between the president and the faculty. Or in short: can’t the president veto an Assembly motion to override his veto?
3. If the faculty assembly prevails, how is this consistent with the State Board’s delegation of executive authority to the president?
Anon1 continued. Apologies for the rough mix of broad and narrow questions.
4. Section 9 describes procedures to uphold Senate legislation that has been vetoed by the President. What about upholding Assembly motions that have been vetoed? (such as one introduced through a petition per 9.5)
5. Rather broad question, but what are the major ways that faculty governance (as provided for by the charter) has been constrained, expanded, clarified, etc. by subsequent legislation and OUS rulemaking? I guess what I’m wondering here is, what is the legal context for this constitution and how much power could we (faculty) really expect or hope to have?
More answers from Old Man to Anon 1
Assembly actions that have been vetoed by Prexy are dead for one calendar year. Then they may be reintroduced. (This protects Prexy from old men who have nothing to do but introduce troublesome policies and legislation.)
Until we are out from under the State Board, we are constrained by the veto power conferred by the Board to Prexy. This constitution is designed to promote negotiated settlements by requiring Prexy to walk the long walk before (s)he can veto. (Of course, any new governing board may wish to confer similar power to Prexy, but we can, if we wish, fight that fight when the time comes — if ever.)
Thanks for your questions, Anon: I’m sorry my answers are a bit out of order — I pushed a wrong button. These answers are to your first set of questions: All University-wide policies (the ones you find in the UO Policy Library) will now either be initiated by the Senate or, if of academic relevance, be subject to modification and ratification by the Senate. They become approved policies when the President Signs them. If the President fails to sign a policy that has come through the Senate by either route, and if negotiations between the Senate and President fail, the Assembly will be convened to discuss and vote on a motion to support the Senate. If they reject the Senate’s version of the policy, Prexy wins. If they support the Senate version, and if Prexy is game to incur the wrath of his Faculty, he will veto and explain by email the reason why he did so. (Rulings from On High give veto power to presidents, and there is no apparent way around that).
Anon 1, who should maybe be called Young Whippersnapper, thanks Old Man for his helpful answers. If I may try to summarize, it sounds the answer to “why is this all important” is, in part, the following: (1) Faculty will now be guaranteed a chance to review and offer input on policies that will affect our work and the academic mission of UO. (2) This constitution encourages collaboration between the pres/admin and the faculty by requiring the president to hear and respond to us on matters that we deem important. (3) Although state law and board policy vest final authority in the president, defying the will of the faculty will be a very slow and very public process for a president. So this constitution will try to make the best use of what little power we have, and where our power falls short it will push for transparency.
Old Man gives Young Whippersnapper a top score.
When UOMatters says the anti-constitution posts seem to come from the same person, I hope he is not looking at IP addresses to infer who may be posting what, but is rather just using intuition. I would find the erosion of anonymity unsettling if the IP snooping takes place.
All comment posts are relayed to uomatters.com via a complex system of “packet requests” and messenger pigeons. Our team of Cistercian nuns, sworn to silence, and celibacy, then anonymize these posts by transcribing them onto postcards, which they send us via pneumatic tubes. We then take pictures of these with an old 35mm Nikon F2, develop them, and post the resulting images. Get a life, anonymous.
It was a fair question, and I’m glad to hear you don’t do it. Not sure why the hostility over a simple clarification, when the act in question would have sparked outrage on your part if it were the administration poking around records.
It’s not a fair question at all. If you want to be truly anonymous then post from an anonymous IP (i.e. don’t be lazy). Don’t count on a blog writer that you don’t even know to cover his eyes when your IP address shoots across his screen. Making such a request is foolhardy.
I don’t know the technical details of what information is given to a blog host. There is a difference between covering one’s eyes, which I agree is a silly request to make, and looking into records and making correlations in order to “out” commentators that have selected anonymous as their ID. I am more concerned that if UOMatters engages in this behavior, then it would have a chilling effect on the comments here. I read his reply as saying he does not, so that satisfies me. If I wanted to be truly anonymous, then I would use an anonymizer, but less adept people may just decide to not post, and that would be a shame.